RE: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Ballot, nweek 6

["Donald Whytock" <dwhytock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Contextual thang.  "Thrown" was defined explicitly in the context of that rule, and capitalized to make it significant.  Since all uses of "Thrown" are capitalized in the rule in the same way as the defined "Thrown" was, I'd rule (should it come to that) that it was the same kind of Throwing used throughout.

Which means it's a good thing I used an uncapitalized "thrown" in my rule. :)

						Glotmorf

On 1/31/02 at 4:07 PM Jonathan Van Matre wrote:

>OK, that makes sense to a point, but it's also not clear that the second
>Throw is of the same type as the first (i.e. randomized, Elbonian style).
>We've seen other kinds of Throws defined by action (e.g. throwing a
>Gremlin on the Grid) and proposals on the current ballot (e.g. ballistic
>Gremlins).  These Throws are accurate and non-Elbonian.
>
>--Scoff!
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Donald Whytock [mailto:dwhytock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>> Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2002 3:59 PM
>> To: spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Ballot, nweek 6
>>
>>
>> Right.  So since it's highly unlikely e'll hit the square e
>> was thrown at the first time, it's also highly unlikely e'll
>> hit the square e's thrown at the next time.  So e won't be
>> perpetually bouncing up and down on the same Impassable
>> Object.  Much more likely e'll go bouncing off lots of
>> different Impassable Objects in succession.
>>
>> 						Glotmorf
>>
>> On 1/31/02 at 3:40 PM Jonathan Van Matre wrote:
>>
>> >Hmm...it's not entirely clear that e is thrown at the same square e
>> >requested to be thrown at.  Judging by the text I quoted, the nearest
>> >antecedent for the last 2 words "that square" is "a square which is
>> >occupied by an Impassable Object".  i.e. the square the
>> player landed on,
>> >not the one e aimed at.
>> >
>> >--Scoff!
>> >
>> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> From: Donald Whytock [mailto:dwhytock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>> >> Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2002 3:22 PM
>> >> To: spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
>> >> Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Ballot, nweek 6
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On 1/31/02 at 11:42 AM Jonathan Van Matre wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >NO > Proposal 315/2: I'm Flying! (Wonko)
>> >> >
>> >> >Again with the excessive Chutzpah.  Also, it looks like
>> "If a player,
>> >> >after being Thrown, ends up on a square which is occupied by
>> >> an Impassable
>> >> >Object, e loses 5 points [[for being injured in the
>> landing]] and is
>> >> >Thrown at that square." is an infinite recursion loop.
>> Fly  Elbonian
>> >> >Airways!  Again and again and again and again and....
>> >> >
>> >> >--Scoff!
>> >>
>> >> No it's not, because the formula for Elbonian Airways
>> >> virtually guarantees you won't land where you're thrown.  But
>> >> you can bounce a godawful amount first...:)
>> >>
>> >> 						Glotmorf
>> >>
>>
>>
>>
>>